To gel or not to gel: correlating molecular gelation with solvent parameters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rational design of small molecular gelators is an elusive and herculean task, despite the rapidly growing body of literature devoted to such gels over the past decade. The process of self-assembly, in molecular gels, is intricate and must balance parameters influencing solubility and those contrasting forces that govern epitaxial growth into axially symmetric elongated aggregates. Although the gelator-gelator interactions are of paramount importance in understanding gelation, the solvent-gelator specific (i.e., H-bonding) and nonspecific (dipole-dipole, dipole-induced and instantaneous dipole induced forces) intermolecular interactions are equally important. Solvent properties mediate the self-assembly of molecular gelators into their self-assembled fibrillar networks. Herein, solubility parameters of solvents, ranging from partition coefficients (log P), to Henry's law constants (HLC), to solvatochromic parameters (ET(30)), and Kamlet-Taft parameters (β, α and π), and to Hansen solubility parameters (δp, δd, δh), are correlated with the gelation ability of numerous classes of molecular gelators. Advanced solvent clustering techniques have led to the development of a priori tools that can identify the solvents that will be gelled and not gelled by molecular gelators. These tools will greatly aid in the development of novel gelators without solely relying on serendipitous discoveries. These tools illustrate that the quest for the universal gelator should be left in the hands of Don Quixote and as researchers we must focus on identifying gelators capable of gelling classes of solvents as there is likely no one gelator capable of gelling all solvents.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".